I agree that its a weak story. But, I also think this is likely true. Based on comments by Ainge and Pierce, I think he is coming to the end of the road in Boston. I just think everything is coming to a head, most likely before July 1st (although it could carry over to the summer, if they decide to work out a sign and trade, rather than a straight trade).

Here are the facts:

1. Pierce has value, both as a large, non-guaranteed contract, that could be used for a team to shed salary, and as a player who can still give a lot of on-court value to a contender.

2. Danny has gone on record saying he believes the team is more than 1 player away from a championship. Which would suggest he is unlikely to try to go all in next year with a similar roster.

3. Pierce has made it clear that he would be willing to play elsewhere next season, and he wouldn't hold it against Danny for trading him.

Basically, I think Pierce sees the writing on the wall that the window with this core is closed. And I don't think Pierce is that sentimental. I think he will welcome the chance to make one more run on another team to try to solidify his national legacy, now that his C's legacy is in good shape.

And for Pierce, there are a lot of teams he would likely love to go to. He could go to any number of contenders, and be happy to get to make a run next year. Or, he could go to a rebuilding team as cap relief, who would cut him, and allow him to choose his team next year. Either way, he should be pretty happy.

To clear a lot up since I've been following this stuff as close as anyone and the celtics subreddit spends a fair amount of time breaking down our cap structure.Most of this news is coming from Greg Dickerson. He's basing it off his sources within the organization. It's all rumored at this point. Our cap is at 76MM next year, 73MM of that is guaranteed. Ainge will make it a top priority to get under the luxury tax. Unless the luxury tax line is raised to 73MM or more, then we need to do more than just waive the china 3. The options are basically amnesty Pierce, this makes no sense, or waive his contract. Amnestying him costs Ainge 15MM, allows another team to get him for nothing, and still offers us no cap room to make moves this offseason (We'd be sitting somewhere between 58MM-61MM, which is basically the soft cap). Waiving him cuts 10MM off the cap, costs Ainge 5MM in guaranteed money, allows Pierce to enter FA (he's definitely clearing waivers with a 15MM cap figure), and allows the celtics to negotiate with him for the vet minimum or MLE if he truly wants to stay with the franchise (would put our cap at 63MM-66MM). If Pierce isn't traded, this may be the root Ainge takes, since getting under the luxury tax is a priority. We could waive the china 3 and attempt to dump lee/terry to a team with cap, but that's a risky endeavor since a decision must be made on Pierce by June 30.If this does happen, expect KG to request a trade or retire. Might open up more cap room for the C's, but in all likelihood, he'd be going to a team for an expiring contract/young player/pick, which means that cap space would open up for 2014 summer. I'm not entirely sure what Ainge will do. If he's convinced he can get under the luxury tax without waiving Pierce, he won't waive Pierce. It doesn't open up cap space for us to drastically change our roster, and Ainge hates giving away assets for nothing. Expect Pierce to be heavily shopped along with KG and Terry. I don't have a strong opinion on what we should do, but a low playoff seed tax paying non-contender seems like a dumb option for Ainge. With Rondo out half a season, I expect a rebuild and a possible lottery pick in a stacked 2014 draft. Also, important to note that KG will probably only accept a trade to a few select teams (no trade clause) and Ainge would likely support Pierce's desire to not play for a **** team. Plus, what non-contender is trading for one year of old Paul Pierce.

Some other user -

Quote

thought under the new CBA a team couldn't re-sign a waived or traded player for one season... is there some other involvement here that negates this rule?

FMC-

Quote

the new CBA established rules that disallow teams from resigning players for a year if they are traded or amnestied. In this situation, Pierce would be waived so there are no restrictions on the Celtics' ability to resign him. It's a little confusing if you don't pay close attention to this kind of stuff. However, the Celtics would still be over the soft cap, and by waiving him, they forfeit his bird rights. So we could only sign him to a vet minimum or by using the MLE.

some other user -

Quote

Oh.... well it'd seem like a no brainer to do that then. I feel like at this point in his year, with a $5M guarantee, the vet min of $1.3M should be sufficient (if he wants to remain a Celtic... otherwise they could break off part of the MLE or use the bi-annual if available.Thanks for the clarification.EDIT: Couldn't any team then, under this CBA, waive a high capped player and then re-sign them to a cap-friendly deal? I feel like that doesn't make sense, I may be confusing myself.

FMC-

Quote

No. Pierce has a provision where only 5MM is guaranteed money, and that's why this can happen. Let's pretend he doesn't have that provision and is owed 15MM next year. If we waive him, the full 15MM counts against the cap, plus whatever new salary he signs for counts against the cap. So it costs the organization more money and makes our cap figure even higher. It's so illogical you would literally never see it occur. In our current situation, Pierce is owed 15MM, but only 5MM is guaranteed. So we waive him, and save 10MM, both in the organization's pocket and against the cap. So we could then give him the vet min or MLE and still save somewhere between 4MM-8.5MM. Hope that makes sense.

I am hoping he is correct and DA figures out a way to keep the Captain.

To clear a lot up since I've been following this stuff as close as anyone and the celtics subreddit spends a fair amount of time breaking down our cap structure.Most of this news is coming from Greg Dickerson. He's basing it off his sources within the organization. It's all rumored at this point. Our cap is at 76MM next year, 73MM of that is guaranteed. Ainge will make it a top priority to get under the luxury tax. Unless the luxury tax line is raised to 73MM or more, then we need to do more than just waive the china 3. The options are basically amnesty Pierce, this makes no sense, or waive his contract. Amnestying him costs Ainge 15MM, allows another team to get him for nothing, and still offers us no cap room to make moves this offseason (We'd be sitting somewhere between 58MM-61MM, which is basically the soft cap). Waiving him cuts 10MM off the cap, costs Ainge 5MM in guaranteed money, allows Pierce to enter FA (he's definitely clearing waivers with a 15MM cap figure), and allows the celtics to negotiate with him for the vet minimum or MLE if he truly wants to stay with the franchise (would put our cap at 63MM-66MM). If Pierce isn't traded, this may be the root Ainge takes, since getting under the luxury tax is a priority. We could waive the china 3 and attempt to dump lee/terry to a team with cap, but that's a risky endeavor since a decision must be made on Pierce by June 30.If this does happen, expect KG to request a trade or retire. Might open up more cap room for the C's, but in all likelihood, he'd be going to a team for an expiring contract/young player/pick, which means that cap space would open up for 2014 summer. I'm not entirely sure what Ainge will do. If he's convinced he can get under the luxury tax without waiving Pierce, he won't waive Pierce. It doesn't open up cap space for us to drastically change our roster, and Ainge hates giving away assets for nothing. Expect Pierce to be heavily shopped along with KG and Terry. I don't have a strong opinion on what we should do, but a low playoff seed tax paying non-contender seems like a dumb option for Ainge. With Rondo out half a season, I expect a rebuild and a possible lottery pick in a stacked 2014 draft. Also, important to note that KG will probably only accept a trade to a few select teams (no trade clause) and Ainge would likely support Pierce's desire to not play for a **** team. Plus, what non-contender is trading for one year of old Paul Pierce.

Some other user -

Quote

thought under the new CBA a team couldn't re-sign a waived or traded player for one season... is there some other involvement here that negates this rule?

FMC-

Quote

the new CBA established rules that disallow teams from resigning players for a year if they are traded or amnestied. In this situation, Pierce would be waived so there are no restrictions on the Celtics' ability to resign him. It's a little confusing if you don't pay close attention to this kind of stuff. However, the Celtics would still be over the soft cap, and by waiving him, they forfeit his bird rights. So we could only sign him to a vet minimum or by using the MLE.

some other user -

Quote

Oh.... well it'd seem like a no brainer to do that then. I feel like at this point in his year, with a $5M guarantee, the vet min of $1.3M should be sufficient (if he wants to remain a Celtic... otherwise they could break off part of the MLE or use the bi-annual if available.Thanks for the clarification.EDIT: Couldn't any team then, under this CBA, waive a high capped player and then re-sign them to a cap-friendly deal? I feel like that doesn't make sense, I may be confusing myself.

FMC-

Quote

No. Pierce has a provision where only 5MM is guaranteed money, and that's why this can happen. Let's pretend he doesn't have that provision and is owed 15MM next year. If we waive him, the full 15MM counts against the cap, plus whatever new salary he signs for counts against the cap. So it costs the organization more money and makes our cap figure even higher. It's so illogical you would literally never see it occur. In our current situation, Pierce is owed 15MM, but only 5MM is guaranteed. So we waive him, and save 10MM, both in the organization's pocket and against the cap. So we could then give him the vet min or MLE and still save somewhere between 4MM-8.5MM. Hope that makes sense.

I am hoping he is correct and DA figures out a way to keep the Captain.

This must be Rondo's surgeon cause he knows that he will be out half the season...............

I am hoping he is correct and DA figures out a way to keep the Captain.

I believe he is mostly right. The problem is, I just don't think its realistic to think the C's will cut Pierce, costing him $10 million+, and then he will just decide to resign for the vet minimum or MLE, particularly given the current state of the team.

I am hoping he is correct and DA figures out a way to keep the Captain.

I believe he is mostly right. The problem is, I just don't think its realistic to think the C's will cut Pierce, costing him $10 million+, and then he will just decide to resign for the vet minimum or MLE, particularly given the current state of the team.

Yeah I don't see Pierce getting cut and then coming back for the veteran's minimum. There would be too many other attractive options at that price and he'd rightly think if the c's really wanted him they could have just had him play out his contract for the full amount.

I am hoping he is correct and DA figures out a way to keep the Captain.

I believe he is mostly right. The problem is, I just don't think its realistic to think the C's will cut Pierce, costing him $10 million+, and then he will just decide to resign for the vet minimum or MLE, particularly given the current state of the team.

Yeah I don't see Pierce getting cut and then coming back for the veteran's minimum. There would be too many other attractive options at that price and he'd rightly think if the c's really wanted him they could have just had him play out his contract for the full amount.

Particularly since cutting him wouldn't give them any more cap room to make the team better.

I think there is a scenario where you could possibly get a player on board, if their paycut would allow you to field a better team around them. But this paycut would really just be lining the owners pockets. (OK, maybe there are some luxury tax rule things where it could make a small difference...but not enough to sway him).

I don't think Pierce would take it personally. But I also don't think it would show him the type of dedication that would make him pass up a chance to contend on another team.

I am hoping he is correct and DA figures out a way to keep the Captain.

I believe he is mostly right. The problem is, I just don't think its realistic to think the C's will cut Pierce, costing him $10 million+, and then he will just decide to resign for the vet minimum or MLE, particularly given the current state of the team.

Yeah I don't see Pierce getting cut and then coming back for the veteran's minimum. There would be too many other attractive options at that price and he'd rightly think if the c's really wanted him they could have just had him play out his contract for the full amount.

Particularly since cutting him wouldn't give them any more cap room to make the team better.

I think there is a scenario where you could possibly get a player on board, if their paycut would allow you to field a better team around them. But this paycut would really just be lining the owners pockets. (OK, maybe there are some luxury tax rule things where it could make a small difference...but not enough to sway him).

I don't think Pierce would take it personally. But I also don't think it would show him the type of dedication that would make him pass up a chance to contend on another team.

There would be cap benefits, cutting Pierce would allow us to avoid the tax apron and we'd be eligible for sign & trades, and have more money available for the MLE.

I am hoping he is correct and DA figures out a way to keep the Captain.

I believe he is mostly right. The problem is, I just don't think its realistic to think the C's will cut Pierce, costing him $10 million+, and then he will just decide to resign for the vet minimum or MLE, particularly given the current state of the team.

Yeah I don't see Pierce getting cut and then coming back for the veteran's minimum. There would be too many other attractive options at that price and he'd rightly think if the c's really wanted him they could have just had him play out his contract for the full amount.

Particularly since cutting him wouldn't give them any more cap room to make the team better.

I think there is a scenario where you could possibly get a player on board, if their paycut would allow you to field a better team around them. But this paycut would really just be lining the owners pockets. (OK, maybe there are some luxury tax rule things where it could make a small difference...but not enough to sway him).

I don't think Pierce would take it personally. But I also don't think it would show him the type of dedication that would make him pass up a chance to contend on another team.

I think he could come back, but once other teams are legally allowed to talk to him, it could be harder. The biggest problem is that Danny has to make a decision on pierce before the salary cap/luxury tax levels are revealed. He might be willing to come back for the minimum, or the BAE, right now, but suppose the luxury tax level is high enough so that his old salary would have fit under the limit -- would he still feel as loyal then? Especially if the Clippers offer him the MLE?

Its one year. Dont think they would get a pretty package in return. Wasn't the best ofder at the deadline Humphries and Brooks? Haha

Danny has prepared people for the worst but just like every other year he rarely sees a deal worth it for Pierce.

Because as he's srated over and over and over again Pierce is a lot more valuable to the Celtics than anyone else in the NBA. And he means a lot more to Boston and the team than just playing basketball.

I just don't see Danny forcefeeding some move to get rid of him or just straight up cutting him

1) With Pierce, KG, Rondo, Sully and other key additions, can we win it all?? With Pierce handling the ball quite a bit of the time, esp in the 4th, can we win??

2) IF Pierce gets traded in the offseason, does that actually hamper the team chemistry? Would it be better to start the season without him

3) If we trade Pierce before the season starts, what kind of Value can we get back? How many bad contracts would we have to eat up??

These are the million dollar question Danny has to think about. I don't think he feels comfortable to pay Pierce 15 million even if its only for a year, and worse get nowhere in the playoffs and lose out on a potential high pick. The confidence is not there, with everything he has said so far. He wants Doc and KG to be back, especially kg is still valuable as a Defensive anchor , plus his intensity and trainning will be good for the younger guys. But will KG comeback without Pierce?? Will Doc comeback without either stars? Remember if Doc leaves the team now , on a pretty high note with everything he has accomplished, he will likely get scooped up by a top level team. If he tries to manage a pp/kg less team, not only will he have numerous headaches but also his chances to get a top level job might be hampered.

I think Danny is going to explore a sign and trade by draft night. Two teams that are candidates for him are Brookly and LA Clippers. Brooklyn apparently offered a deal involving Humprhies, Brooks and a 1st. Or Clippers can offer a 1st , butler and other contract fillers. Either way getting a 1st would be key (esp if Danny is eyeing a late pick talent) plus whatever else best he could get.

KG i think won't be pleased of this , but still ends up staying. He is a loyal guy that hates change of scenery. And it will be his last year anyways. Doc stays for another year.